Letters: North County, March 3, 2013

We can do better

I have spent a great deal of time lately at hospitals visiting deputy sheriffs wounded in the line of duty. These are dangerous times. Violent criminals and gang members represent a constant danger to the public and to law enforcement. In addition, when the seriously mentally ill are not treated and arm themselves, they too represent a serious danger of violence. Your headlines speak to this truth.

Recently, columnist Logan Jenkins focused much-needed attention on the issue of the untreated mentally ill (“Laura’s Law would help us find a path toward sanity,” Feb. 26). I need to make one correction to his otherwise thoughtful piece. He stated that I was upset with mental health officials in San Diego County. To the contrary, my deputies and I work closely with the mental health professionals of San Diego County Health and Human Services and they are first rate. They are committed to individual mental health and to the protection of the public.

My displeasure is with a statewide — and even nationwide — mental health system that has made sheriffs’ departments, through the jails they operate, one of the largest providers of mental health service. This is disgraceful and the result is increased danger to front-line law enforcement and to the men, women, and children of our community.

Understanding the Second Amendment

Yes, the amendment is not Scripture and can itself be amended. Point taken, but not sure what the larger point is. However, I found the “obsolete” and “useless” assertions somewhat puzzling.

To begin, the Second Amendment was not written to permit hunting, target shooting, personal self-defense or any other apolitical armed activity. The amendment was expressly written to codify the right of a sovereign people to a means of self-defense against tyranny and invasion. That is not my opinion, that is the universal understanding at the time of our constitutional founding (please, liberal friends, spare me the inane collective-right nonsense of the militia argument. Read the words of the amendment and investigate its origins).

Based on this, I’m perplexed by Thompson’s view. Obsolescence implies the original purpose is moot. Does Thompson believe tyranny can no longer occur and/or that external forces could never threaten the nation or, alternatively, that an armed people could not effectively oppose modern military and police forces? No, one can believe these things only if historically myopic.

So, what is it about our time that renders the Second Amendment “obsolete” and “useless”? Perhaps Thompson could identify the period in our history when the amendment was not yet obsolete. I’m curious to know why or how the right to the means to secure and ensure other fundamental rights (life, liberty, etc.) eventually becomes pointless.